My problem with Nintendo and the 'If it ain't broke' theory.

[Cheesepower5]

That`s why I specified no more than other games. These are samall changes yes, but normal compared with any given franchise. The only reason you want Mario or Zelda to change completely as opposed to, say - Gears of War or Mass Effect (random examples) is because you don`t like them.

Wrong. The reason people give Nintendo a hard time and not other series is because for the most part they've been making the same game over and over since the N64; so about 16 years. Not to mention that in that time the underlying mechanics not only haven't changed much, they usually haven't changed at all.

If you can't see how some iterative improvement across a 3 game series within the span of a few years is different than games which, even if they had the same level of iterative improvement, have been getting made for more than 3 times as long then you're just being willfully blind.

And you think CoD 10 years down the road is going to be a a rhythm game? They've been doing it for longer because they've been around for longer. Logic, man, logic.

Of course, it's just going to run on nostalgia by then because people will be imitating something else. Just like people imitated Mario. History repeats. And once again, countless spin-offs and different sequels have been brought up. So who's REALLY being willfully blind.

 

[mrdude2010]

Call of Duty needs to take a cue from Nintendo: It's perfectly alright to release the same game as long as you wait 3-5 years between each installment.

 

[Asita]

Your argument falls down in the fact that there were three (main) God of War games, and soon to be four. How many Mario platformers are there? And then you paint God of War with the generalization of killing mythological gods and monsters and then defend Smash Brothers with detail as fine as Wolf's weight class?

Yes, we know that other companies do the same thing as Nintendo, but other companies also then move on to other IPs while Nintendo has done very little of that.

To the former: To be blunt, quantity shouldn't factor in. Repetition is repetition, and what I was pointing out was that the inconsistent criteria by which the OP was comparing the IPs. I refer you to the first post wherein he presents the God of War series as a decent example of variance by highlighting the differences in their respective premises. One page later he dismisses a similar level of difference, which I was highlighting by presenting his original example in what I felt was similarly generalized terms to how he was presenting the latter IP. I did so to make a point about the way rob_simple was presenting his arguments.

As to the latter: The weight class bit was an incidental note in what I flat out acknowledged in the post itself as the most derivative three characters in the game, a tidbit I felt amusing, as the two similar-themed characters in the same tier included the most distinct of the three, which I noted by mentioning weight class and moveset. This, however, was hardly even a tangent in my argument, which focused on the number of characters with unique movesets in the games to counter rob_simple's claim that the characters were essentially repeats of priorly used characters.

I hope that clarifies my post a bit.

 

[RafaelNegrus]

To the former: To be blunt, quantity shouldn't factor in. Repetition is repetition, and what I was pointing out was that the inconsistent criteria by which the OP was comparing the IPs. I refer you to the first post wherein he presents the God of War series as a decent example of variance by highlighting the differences in their respective premises. One page later he dismisses a similar level of difference, which I was highlighting by presenting his original example in what I felt was similarly generalized terms to how he was presenting the latter IP. I did so to make a point about the way rob_simple was presenting his arguments.

As to the latter: The weight class bit was an incidental note in what I flat out acknowledged in the post itself as the most derivative three characters in the game, a tidbit I felt amusing, as the two similar-themed characters in the same tier included the most distinct of the three, which I noted by mentioning weight class and moveset. This, however, was hardly even a tangent in my argument, which focused on the number of characters with unique movesets in the games to counter rob_simple's claim that the characters were essentially repeats of priorly used characters.

I hope that clarifies my post a bit.

Of course quantity factors in. Ideas aren't one and done, have to move on to something completely different. Let's take a look at the Elder Scrolls series, cause that's one of the game series that I have played 3 games of and are currently coming to mind. The idea behind them has been a big open world that you can do many different things in, however with Morrowind the game never really sold itself, it didn't make it all that apparent everything that the game had to offer and was content to let you wander in rainy muddy forests for a little too long. Oblivion did a little better with that, but it had an unintuitive leveling system and really suffered from the terrible disease of everything-looks-the-same-itis. Skyrim dealt with those issues too and is so far the best representation of the core idea (could be better, namely more stuff to do and factions, but still).

I think trilogies are probably about the right length for refining the ideas so that they are executed better. The thing is that Nintendo have been using the same kind of ideas for so long that they're getting really stale. They've done better with some IPs than others, Metroid Prime was a new take that still had the same appeal and could be looked at as the ideal balance between innovating and staying true to the original, but Mario for example has not really done this. True, some games he could be replaced with anybody else and the game would be the same (racing, sports, party games, etc.) but his core platformer games have just started re-using ideas and using them selling points (Super Mario 3D Land for example). That is obviously ridiculous.

I was introducing the weight class comparison just to point out that you attack his examples of God of War by simplifying them, while bolstering your own by being very specific.

 

[Asita]

I was introducing the weight class comparison just to point out that you attack his examples of God of War by simplifying them, while bolstering your own by being very specific.

And again: You're cherry picking to make your point. To start off, you take that out and ignore the more evident difference I mentioned in the same sentence, a fact made more egregious by how I've repeatedly noted that my pointing out the differences between Fox and Wolf was irrelevant to the point as a whole (that point being: the debunking of the claim that the roster was full of carbon copies by listing the various non-carbon copies).

Furthermore, as similarly noted: My description of God of War was a characterization of rob_simple's phrasing of other IPs for the sake of illustrating the inconsistency of his criteria, as noted by my immediate qualifying in the post itself as putting his example in 'similar terms' to his characterization of Mario Sunshine, and subsequently reminding him to 'be consistent in [his] criteria'. It was never presented as a characterization I'd champion but an illustration of his own position. Amusingly, you're criticizing me for not holding to the very position I was criticizing in my post, which I am under no obligation to adhere to as my only use of it was to point out the argument's flawed nature.

 

[Aprilgold]

HAHAHA This is RIIIICH.

>Nintendo made three new franchises this gen
>Made a Zelda without Ganon and completely new control scheme and innovative puzzles
>Mario games are almost always different
>Metroid Prime and Other M are different that it's hard to believe they're in the same franchise
>Pikmin is its own genre
>Reviving side-scrollers has been a bunch of similar games so they REVIVE THE SIDE SCROLLERS
>Pokemon constantly trying risks in social networking, new tactics, story, and level design


Rich. Just rich.

Btw, if you want Nintendo to innovate more with Zelda? Shut up about it. No really, think about it. It's the diverse franchise that feels like they know what's best that pulls it apart in two constantly conflicting directions. In short, Ocarina of Time was the worst thing to happen to Zelda.

Thank you.

Mario Sunshine: And what is it you are doing in this new world? Hunting for stars (sorry, Shines) just like you did in Mario 64 and just like you'll be doing in Galaxy. And what story are you talking about? The imposter Mario or Bowser and his son kidnapping Peach? Because that's writing about on par with a saturday morning kid's show.

They're not plot-driven games, for fuck's sake. They're gameplay, environment and challenge-driven. The stars are simply goal posts, and something you collect upon beating the actual challenges set before you.

One moment you are to scale a mountain, the next you race against a rival character, fight a boss battle, attempt to collect flying coins by shooting yourself out of a cannon, explore underwater caverns, help a penguin mother find her baby, or storm a lego fortress that seemingly hovers above hell itself.

The "story" is just a basic fairytale scenario to get you going, or to explain a shift in environments.

Yeah? And how many times have you raced that rival? How many times have you had to climb to the top of something really high? How many times have you stun-locked a boss three times to jump on him or hit his weak spot or swing him into something?

Without a plot, you are just repeating the same motions through the same games. The levels might be different and the extras might be slightly re-skinned but the task is always the same: get the star. Help a mother penguin find her baby in one game is just help X find Y in another game; they're just hoops to jump through to reach the same goal you've been aiming for for four games now.

It doesn't make the games bad, though, they're just not creative or particularly special.

*Doesn't mention the fact that Mario 64 was just platforming and that Mario Sunshine had this whole new mechanic about cleaning shiz.*

For the sake of comparison, Mario has gone to space right after returning to his 2D roots. Mario went from jumping over barrels as Jump-Man to a RPG. Legend of Zelda went from a top down perspective about simply collecting triangles to a highly story based RPG involving three-dimensional people. Earthbound took the RPG genre and took out the grind. Yes, Earthbound and Super Mario RPG were actually made co-part by Square Enix, but Nintendo still helped.

Nintendo made Pikmin, a game without genre, made Animal Crossing, which was sims without needs and Pokemon Tournament games for the console, which revolve around just fighting other pokemon without grinding. Metroid went from a side scrolling game to a first person shooter to a third person action game.

No, Nintendo does not make the same game repetitively, while similarities, it is not the same.

---------------------------------

Honestly, anyone that says Nintendo makes the same game can go be fucked by what they never want to be fucked by and anyone who says this is ignorant just because if its the same franchise doesn't mean gameplay can't be changed.

 

[RafaelNegrus]

And again: You're cherry picking to make your point. To start off, you take that out and ignore the more evident difference I mentioned in the same sentence, a fact made more egregious by how I've repeatedly noted that my pointing out the differences between Fox and Wolf was irrelevant to the point as a whole (that point being: the debunking of the claim that the roster was full of carbon copies by listing the various non-carbon copies).

Furthermore, as similarly noted: My description of God of War was a characterization of rob_simple's phrasing of other IPs for the sake of illustrating the inconsistency of his criteria, as noted by my immediate qualifying in the post itself as putting his example in 'similar terms' to his characterization of Mario Sunshine, and subsequently reminding him to 'be consistent in [his] criteria'. It was never presented as a characterization I'd champion but an illustration of his own position. Amusingly, you're criticizing me for not holding to the very position I was criticizing in my post, which I am under no obligation to adhere to as my only use of it was to point out the argument's flawed nature.

Alright, I see your point about what you were using those examples for, but I also think basically everyone here is doing the same thing, either against or in favor of Nintendo (myself included, though I try not to).

Although it is probably a little hyperbolic to claim that they are the same game, I do think it is fair to say that they can't venture incredibly far from the spirit of the original while still using the same series, and they could probably do more exciting and creative things with new IP than with series' that are now 30 years old or more.

 

[lapan]

When it's a Mario game, you are saving Princess Peach from Bowser; or you're Luigi (Mario in a different shirt) saving Daisy (Peach with a dye job) from Bowser Jr (Midget Bowser). In Zelda, you are Link saving Zelda from Ganon. Sure, sometimes you're a wolf and she's a pirate and he's a giant pig-monster but it's always. The. God. Damn. Same.

Don't both Super Mario Sunshine and Paper Mario stray from this formula? And Zelda games at least innovate themselves about every 3 games with graphics updates, transition from 2d to 3d or different set of controls and more graphic updates. And with God of War you don't really make a valid case against them anyways, their story always boils down to: extremly angry guy massacre his way through greek mythology (i can oversimplify too).

Mario Kart has been rehashing the same tracks for more than a decade. Oh, sorry, they call them 'tributes' now.

Super Smash Bros. literally copy-pasted the moveset of their original roster and re-skinned them then released it as a new game. Twice.

And they released new tracks and characters on top of it. Other fighting game and racing series do the same.

 

[Ranorak]

Isn't the whole point of a franchise the idea that you know exactly what you get?

If they suddenly turned CoD into a tactical turn based game, it wouldn't be CoD any more.
If final Fantasy changed into a first person hack and slash...
If zelda wasn't about dungeons and items any more it wouldn't be zelda.

 

[rob_simple]

Wow, I actually had to crack my knuckles for this one, here we go again...

Mario Sunshine: And what is it you are doing in this new world? Hunting for stars (sorry, Shines) just like you did in Mario 64 and just like you'll be doing in Galaxy. And what story are you talking about? The imposter Mario or Bowser and his son kidnapping Peach? Because that's writing about on par with a saturday morning kid's show.

Mario Kart: If you love those old tracks go play those old games. If I'm forking out forty quid for a brand new game then you better believe I'm don't expect to be paying for the same content I already have two or three times before.

Smash Bros.: I'm not grasping at anything. The roster has expanded but every new character is a double of a previous one with only slightly tweaked movesets. Mario is Luigi; Fox is Falco; Captain Falcon is Ganondorf; Peach is Daisy on and on and on and on. It doesn't matter how big the roster is when it can still be boiled down to the original 12 characters or whatever. And you're right about Street Fighter, but that's my point. Every laughs about how bold-facedly Capcom releases the same Street Fighter games over and over but Nintendo does the same damn thing and people think it's brilliant.

The writing being on par with a kids show: It's a game for kids. Dolt.
And really? You're going to grill it for collecting shiny shit? Yet you mention NOTHING of the THOUSANDS of platformers out there, many NOT made by Nintendo, that get IMMENSE praise for jumping around collecting shiny shit to save your girlfriend. Games that are in 2D mind you, so they're not even breaking the old mold, and they get insane praise. If you're going to complain about what one game does, you don't get to excuse it for others.

What are you actually doing now? You tried to say that Mario Sunshine had a great story, I pointed out that as always Nintendo's writing was on par with your average kid's show (i.e. bollocks) and you said 'well durrr it's a game for kids' rendering your original point about the story being good moot.

Mario Kart: They still release a shit ton of new tracks per game. Or did you forget that?

Nope, I remember that, but it still doesn't excuse rehashing carbon copies of old levels and then selling it as new IP.

Smash Bros: Peach is a character all in her own. Daisey makes no official appearance in the game. The clone characters ALWAYS have different mechanics, damage output, and attack pattern. Such as Falco's meteor Smash.
And since we're playing this game:
SSBB's Roster
Bowser (unique)
Donkey Kong (unique)
Diddy Kong (unique)
Fox (Unique)
Ice Climbers (unique)
Ike (unique, only one copied move)
King Dedede (unique)
Kirby (unique)
Link (unique)
Lucas (move set mimics Ness but with an entirely different set of effects)
Mario (unique)
Meta Knight (unique)
Olimar (unique)
Peach (unique)
Pikachu (unique)
Pit (unique)
Pokémon Trainer (unique)
Samus*/Zero Suit Samus (unique)
Wario (unique)
Yoshi (unique)
Zelda*/Sheik (unique)
Captain Falcon (unique)
Falco (move set mimics Fox. Heavier, jumps higher. Different attack properties)
Ganondorf (Mimics Cap. Falcon. Heaver, different attack properties)
Jigglypuff (unique)
Lucario (unique)
Luigi (mimics Mario. Different attack proprties. Lighter, jumps higher)
Marth (unique)
Mr. Game & Watch (unique)
Ness (unique)
R.O.B. (unique)
Snake (unique)
Sonic (unique)
Toon Link (mimics link. Lighter, different attack properties)
Wolf (unique)

Out of 35 characters only 5 have a similar move set to another character, their attack properties are changed and the character's stats are changed making them completely different play styles.
Tell me again how that's worse than Ken, Ryu, Akuma, Gouken, Sakua, Sagat, and at least 5 other characters all having the same input commands and play style in Street Fighter.

The characters have the same input because there's a finite number of button combinations a controller is capable of. And while I'll give you that Ryu, Ken and Sakura have the same moveset Akumas has moves unique to him (such as the Shungokusatsu) and I don't know what the fuck Sagat is doing in there because he's a god damn kickboxer an entirely different skillset.

But really there is no point in arguing about this anymore, because if you genuinely believe that Mario/Luigi, Roy/Marth, Fox/Falco, Falcon/Ganondorf can all be considered unique characters despite having the EXACT same movesets albeit with different damage ratios you are completely delusional.

but Nintendo seem to be the only one people actually try to defend as being a company that still release original, top-quality games when in actual fact they are, for the most part, average at best.

Call of Duty
Halo
Medal of Honor
Uncharted
Tomb Raider
Final Fantasy
Ratchet and Clank
Grand Theft Auto
Mortal Kombat
King of Fighters

Every one of those game's parent companies tries to convince you that each iteration was new, and different.
The list goes on, you are a moron.

I notice you tactfully cut out the part where I said all other companies are guilty of the exact same thing, but (and that's why there is a but at the start of that sentence) while we deride CoD for being the same and all the grunting space marine bullshit, people still hail Nintendo as creative geniuses.

But I apologise, don't let the words I actually said get in the way of your impotent bleating.

I didn't leave anything out actually. I quoted where you said that Nintendo was the only one trying to defend it, and they're not. Try again please.

And once again, I never said Nintendo were defending their actions (except for that immensely deluded interview Miyamoto gave, oh and the time Nintendo decried shovelware and said it was ruining the industry despite their Wii console probably being the biggest proponent of shitty broken shovelware games on the market), I was talking about the idiot fanboys that still think a company like Nintendo are relevant in this day and age as innovators. So yes, you did ignore what I was saying to try and give your own point some weight.

They make good games, and I enjoy them, but there is nothing new or interesting about them.

P.S. I am sorry for thinking Daisy was in it though. Is it Mario Kart she's in?

 

[rob_simple]

Mario Sunshine: And what is it you are doing in this new world? Hunting for stars (sorry, Shines) just like you did in Mario 64 and just like you'll be doing in Galaxy. And what story are you talking about? The imposter Mario or Bowser and his son kidnapping Peach? Because that's writing about on par with a saturday morning kid's show.

They're not plot-driven games, for fuck's sake. They're gameplay, environment and challenge-driven. The stars are simply goal posts, and something you collect upon beating the actual challenges set before you.

One moment you are to scale a mountain, the next you race against a rival character, fight a boss battle, attempt to collect flying coins by shooting yourself out of a cannon, explore underwater caverns, help a penguin mother find her baby, or storm a lego fortress that seemingly hovers above hell itself.

The "story" is just a basic fairytale scenario to get you going, or to explain a shift in environments.

Yeah? And how many times have you raced that rival? How many times have you had to climb to the top of something really high? How many times have you stun-locked a boss three times to jump on him or hit his weak spot or swing him into something?

Without a plot, you are just repeating the same motions through the same games. The levels might be different and the extras might be slightly re-skinned but the task is always the same: get the star. Help a mother penguin find her baby in one game is just help X find Y in another game; they're just hoops to jump through to reach the same goal you've been aiming for for four games now.

It doesn't make the games bad, though, they're just not creative or particularly special.

I'm sorry, but I you seem to be operating from the false assumption that video games are inherently about movie-like plots. Plot isn't the only way to create context for the game's goals. By disregarding the need for a coherent plot for each level--and the limitations thereof--the developers can instead focus their creativity on interesting (and wholly self-contained) environments, and populate them with creative challenges that put both the player's creativity and mastery of the game mechanics to the test.

This design allows besting the challenges to become solely its own reward, rather than the means to an end that it usually ends up as in more cinematic games. Focusing on the star at the end of the challenge is losing sight of what playing the game is really about.

Thinking that this is the point of Super Mario Bros...

...means that you've missed the entire game.

You seem to be missing my point. I'm not saying that all games need to be plot-driven, what I am saying is that a game without significant plot has to be able to motivate the player in other ways, and I find nothing motivational about jumping through the same albeit different-coloured hoops to get the same stars I've been collecting for over fifteen years now.

I see the point you are trying to make and I think you are right but I don't think there's anything new or refreshing in any of the worlds Nintendo makes today that we haven't seen a hundred times before in their own games.

 

[rob_simple]

Isn't the whole point of a franchise the idea that you know exactly what you get?

If they suddenly turned CoD into a tactical turn based game, it wouldn't be CoD any more.
If final Fantasy changed into a first person hack and slash...
If zelda wasn't about dungeons and items any more it wouldn't be zelda.

Again I get that, and you are totally right, but whereas Final Fantasy will always have the same basic story, they at least change up the characters with each new story (pretty much all androgynous twenty-somethings but at least they have new names and faces and backgrounds)

The limit of Nintendo pushing out the boat is turning Link into a cartoon or giving Mario a different coloured jumper or a wonky moustache.

 

[JediMB]

I see the point you are trying to make and I think you are right but I don't think there's anything new or refreshing in any of the worlds Nintendo makes today that we haven't seen a hundred times before in their own games.

I would agree with you if we're talking specifically about the New Super Mario Bros. games. In an attempt to appease the fans of the 2D originals, Nintendo has with the "New" series seemingly forgotten to give the games their own identity.

As a result, the DS game ended up feeling stale and uninteresting, and I haven't really bothered with the Wii sequel.

 

[rob_simple]

I see the point you are trying to make and I think you are right but I don't think there's anything new or refreshing in any of the worlds Nintendo makes today that we haven't seen a hundred times before in their own games.

I would agree with you if we're talking specifically about the New Super Mario Bros. games. In an attempt to appease the fans of the 2D originals, Nintendo has with the "New" series seemingly forgotten to give the games their own identity.

As a result, the DS game ended up feeling stale and uninteresting, and I haven't really bothered with the Wii sequel.

They did a similar thing on the Game Boy Advance, I can't remember exactly how they titled it but it was just the original Mario Bros. with better sprites. On the one hand I was happy to play it because I never played the NES original, but on the other hand I'm pretty sure it was included in Super Mario All-Stars (again with better sprites) as well as the 'New' Wii and DS versions you mentioned.

I can totally see why it's nice to see familiar levels with a new polish on them but at the same time I think it borders on the farcical that they've panned that exact river more than four times, now.

 

[rob_simple]

Metroid? Lose all your powers fight Ridley then a giant Metroid. Nintendo just hits reset on the universe after every game concludes, as if all their characters are stuck in some hellish limbo.

Now this is an overstatement.

First of all, there are no Ridley fights in Metroid 2, Metroid Prime 2, or Metroid Prime Hunters. Big metroid fights only feature in Metroid 2, Metroid Prime, Metroid Fusion, and Metroid: Other M (not counting Super Metroid because "having all your energy sucked out" hardly constitutes a fight).

There are even occasions where some powers are retained from game to game. For example, the Long Beam obtained in the first game is never lost, the Charge Beam is frequently retained, and in Metroid 2, Metroid Prime 3, and Metroid Prime Hunters, several other powers are available at the beginning of the game and never lost.

All told, only 2/3 of the games in the franchise feature Ridley, about 1/2 feature boss-level metroids, 2/3 feature loss of all powers (minus the Long Beam, of course), and only 3 games in the entire franchise (Metroid Prime, Metroid Fusion and Metroid Other M) feature all three.

Point taken, I retract that particular statement.

 

[rob_simple]

Wow, I actually had to crack my knuckles for this one, here we go again...

Mario Sunshine: And what is it you are doing in this new world? Hunting for stars (sorry, Shines) just like you did in Mario 64 and just like you'll be doing in Galaxy. And what story are you talking about? The imposter Mario or Bowser and his son kidnapping Peach? Because that's writing about on par with a saturday morning kid's show.

Again, disingenuous considering your defense of God of War. Let's put that example in similar terms, shall we? "And just what is it you are doing in GoW2/GoW3? That's right. You're unleashing a bloody trail of carnage against monsters and gods again, using similar combat mechanics to boot." Seriously, be consistent in your criteria.

But the difference is that there was escalation in almost every aspect the God of War games despite the mechanics fundamentally staying the same. In the original you spent the whole game gaining enough power to kill one god; by the third you are taking them down left right and center.

In the original there were one or two pretty spectacular bossfights but almost that entire game was dwarfed by the sheer scale of the very first battle in God of War II when you fight the animated statue. The locations you visit are gigantic (I'm thinking particularly of running up and down the giant chains to the horses that pulled open the gates of Olympus, was it?

In the original God of War, you are a mortal grieving the loss of your family and seeking revenge against the God who tricked you; by the third game you are nothing more than a callous beast driven by hatred, raising an army of titans and literally destroying the entire world so you can tear down Olympus and all the gods that live within.

In Mario? Peach is kidnapped so go and collect some stars, fight Bowser or a member of his extended family and save Peach. Exact same thing happens again in another couple of years.

 

[JediMB]

I see the point you are trying to make and I think you are right but I don't think there's anything new or refreshing in any of the worlds Nintendo makes today that we haven't seen a hundred times before in their own games.

I would agree with you if we're talking specifically about the New Super Mario Bros. games. In an attempt to appease the fans of the 2D originals, Nintendo has with the "New" series seemingly forgotten to give the games their own identity.

As a result, the DS game ended up feeling stale and uninteresting, and I haven't really bothered with the Wii sequel.

They did a similar thing on the Game Boy Advance, I can't remember exactly how they titled it but it was just the original Mario Bros. with better sprites. On the one hand I was happy to play it because I never played the NES original, but on the other hand I'm pretty sure it was included in Super Mario All-Stars (again with better sprites) as well as the 'New' Wii and DS versions you mentioned.

I can totally see why it's nice to see familiar levels with a new polish on them but at the same time I think it borders on the farcical that they've panned that exact river more than four times, now.

Let's see...

They had a Super Mario Bros. DX release on the Game Boy Color, which was SMB and SMB2j in roughly their original forms.

They had the Super Mario Advance series, which superficially looked like the same SMB2, SMB3, SMW and Yoshi's Island games as those featured on the SNES, but they had various additions like huge enemies and extra levels unlocked through the card reader that never saw the light of day in Europe.

And then... I think they released a line of "Classic NES" games for the GBA that were straight ports of various NES games from both Nintendo and third parties. Mario Bros. was part of this line.

Mario Bros. was in Super Mario All-Stars in the form of a mini-game within Super Mario Bros. 3. I don't particularly like All-Stars, personally, since the "updated" graphics take away from the identities of the original games, and the physics are noticeably off when you've played the original games as much as I have...

 

[SD-Fiend]

I think we can all agree that most games have the same character templates:

-Hero
-Damsel
-Villain

The problem with Zelda and Mario is that these templates are always stuck to the same characters: Link/Mario is the hero, Zelda/Peach is the damsel, and Ganon/Bowser is the villain. After a multitude of games with these characters filling the same role everytime, they just start to feel stale. And they lack any indication that they might act in a new and surprising manner.

This was one of the reasons why I liked Wind Waker, because atleast Zelda was a different character... untill she put on a dress and became the same old boring damsel again.

have you ever played any of the paper mario series games?